Rejecting expert’s evidence

Armstrong and another v First York Ltd CA TLR 17 January

The claimants, whom the judge found to be blameless and honest witnesses, suffered personal injuries arising out of a road traffic accident. However, at the hearing, exceptionally, a jointly instructed expert in the field of accident reconstruction gave oral evidence which was to the effect that the claimants’ case could not be sustained and the defendant raised a charge of fraud against the claimants. In the circumstances the judge ruled that there must be some error in the expert evidence even though he could not identify it because he accepted the evidence of the claimants. The defendant appealed on the grounds that because he was unable to point to any error in the evidence of the expert witness, the judge had no choice other than to accept his evidence. If the claimants’ evidence were accepted, insurers in such cases faced a dilemma where they were doing their best to test the evidence with the assistance of experts.